Maguire v. Board of Pardons & Parole
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---Brian Maguire, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Board of Pardons and Parole, Respondent and Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20090553-CA F I L E D (November 27, 2009) 2009 UT App 350 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department, 090908017 The Honorable Robert K. Hilder Attorneys: Brian Maguire, Gunnison, Appellant Pro Se ----- Before Judges Greenwood, Orme, and Thorne. PER CURIAM: Brian Maguire appeals the district court's order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus. This matter is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition on the basis that the issues presented are so insubstantial as to not merit further proceedings. Maguire argues that the district court erred by misapprehending the petition he filed under rule 65B(d)(2)(D) as a petition under rule 65C of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. However, in responding to Maguire's petition the district court complied with the Utah Supreme Court's transfer order that expressly directed the district court to consider the petition as a post-conviction petition under rule 65C(b). The district court complied with the supreme court's order and determined that Maguire was not entitled to relief under rule 65C for various reasons, including that the Post-Conviction Remedies Act does not apply to "actions taken by the Board of Pardons and Parole," Utah Code Ann. ยง 78B-9-102(2)(c) (2008). Because the petition was directed at the Board of Pardons and Parole and because the supreme court ordered that the petition be construed as a petition for post-conviction relief, the district court correctly dismissed the case, and this court cannot reach the issues underlying Maguire's petition in this appeal. Affirmed. ______________________________ Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge ______________________________ Gregory K. Orme, Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge 20090553-CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
